Zero Dark Thirty

[MarkGrace]

I think there was some symbolism involved there as well but I tend to see symbolism sometimes when it is not meant. The monkeys are caged just like the al-queda prisoners. Monkeys are animals and the prisoners are treated as such. Using coercive interrogation tactics makes both the interrogator and interogatee less human. In my view, the monkey stealing Dan's ice cream cone was symbolic of the interrogations stealing Dan's humanity. The monkeys being removed from the base also symbolized Dan's leaving the base and removal from that aspect of intelligence gathering and moving on. Dan's character put it best: "I think I've seen too many naked guys..." Or as GL stated, the interrogator eventually breaks just as the the interrogatee ....if he is to keep some aspect of his humanity.

This is great.

[old_gregg]

Spoiler for "spoiler:

the dude from parks and rec as the specops guy was obnoxious. a member of seal team 6 would not goad a cia analyst like he did at area 51. also, what was the deal with the pilots of the downed stealth-hawk? in no easy day, the pilots are destroying the avionics during the raid. but i can't imagine they'd be left there unarmed to do that for 30 mins?

[OrangeUte]

A CUNY Law School Professor, who represents detainees, chimes in (via al Jazeera):

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/01/20131191566253143.html

I saw this last night. I don't agree with much that he said about movie itself, and certainly didn't find it to be anywhere near resembling a snuff film. Different perspectives I suppose, but I simply cannot agree with anyone who thinks we should have held off getting Bin Laden dead or alive.

[Blueintheface]

Saw it, loved it.

[LA Ute]

I still haven't seen to but will. Meanwhile:

Park City, Utah – Kathryn Bigelow's Oscar-nominated "Zero Dark Thirty" about the hunt for Osama Bin Laden has been steeped in controversy over its portrayal of CIA agents waterboarding prisoners.

Bigelow has stood by her depictions, but the CIA officers who devoted their careers to finding the Al Qaeda leader, featured in the documentary "Manhunt," beg to differ.

"The interrogation stuff was inaccurate, that's not the way," Marty Martin, who served as a member of the Senior Intelligence Service in the Middle East, told FOX411's Pop Tarts column. CIA analyst Cindy Storer added that the dramatized torture scenes are "potential for people to misunderstand how the national security apparatus works."

"If this is what people take away from the movie, other than just entertainment, that is problematic," she said. "If they see 'Manhunt,' then they will see the contrast."

"Manhunt" argues that more "traditional" interrogation techniques have been proven to be the most effective.

Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment...#ixzz2Ijt1Fx2y

[woot]

Does the government still officially deny the use of torture entirely, or is the issue just that they have issues with the specific techniques depicted, or that they deny that it led to the information depicted in the movie?

I agree it's really unfortunate that more wasn't made of all the inaccurate information they got from "enhanced interrogation techniques", but I also don't think a director necessarily has a responsibility to include things that bog the movie down for the sake of historical accuracy. If it's true that the information wasn't even gathered using such techniques, then that is a directorial decision I can't respect. Who knows what the truth is though, regardless of any official positions.

Meanwhile, I really liked the movie as well, even though I thought it was a little too focused and linear relative to Hurt Locker, and is therefore probably an inferior movie. I don't really love either.

[MarkGrace]

Does the government still officially deny the use of torture entirely, or is the issue just that they have issues with the specific techniques depicted, or that they deny that it led to the information depicted in the movie?

I think the party line has been that it didn't play as big a role as depicted in the movie and that a variety of techniques were used to ultimately catch UBL. But as I said in my first comment, I think the movie did a pretty good job in showing that a variety of techniques were used.

Meanwhile, I really liked the movie as well, even though I thought it was a little too focused and linear relative to Hurt Locker, and is therefore probably an inferior movie. I don't really love either.

Focus and linearity sounds like something you'd use to argue that it was better. ha.

[SteelBlue]

Saw it and loved it. First time seeing a movie in an XD theater and when the bomb went off in the hotel I nearly had to run home for a change of clothes. I'm embarrassed at how badly that startled me.

[PaloAltoCougar]

Saw it and loved it. First time seeing a movie in an XD theater and when the bomb went off in the hotel I nearly had to run home for a change of clothes. I'm embarrassed at how badly that startled me.

One of Bigelow's considerable strengths is the way she creates and maintains a sense of menace or impending doom throughout the film. Not a film where one sits back and relaxes.

[LA Ute]

I agree it's really unfortunate that more wasn't made of all the inaccurate information they got from "enhanced interrogation techniques", but I also don't think a director necessarily has a responsibility to include things that bog the movie down for the sake of historical accuracy. If it's true that the information wasn't even gathered using such techniques, then that is a directorial decision I can't respect. Who knows what the truth is though, regardless of any official positions.

It doesn't bother me too much as long as the CIA types get a chance to say "That's now quite how it was" and ACLU types can say "It was worse than that." To me, films (movies) are art/entertainment and filmmakers are artists/entertainers, not historians. They don't need to be historically precise unless they are claiming to be (and I haven't done any reading into whether Bigelow is making that claim). I think (hope?) most people don't walk away from a Hollywood movie thinking they've just seen historical truth on the screen. I have a nagging feeling that I am a bit naive in thinking so, however.

[MarkGrace]

It doesn't bother me too much as long as the CIA types get a chance to say "That's now quite how it was" and ACLU types can say "It was worse than that." To me, films (movies) are art/entertainment and filmmakers are artists/entertainers, not historians. They don't need to be historically precise unless they are claiming to be (and I haven't done any reading into whether Bigelow is making that claim). I think (hope?) most people don't walk away from a Hollywood movie thinking they've just seen historical truth on the screen. I have a nagging feeling that I am a bit naive in thinking so, however.

Well, one thing Bigelow and Boal need to stop saying is that they took a journalistic approach to the movie. Boal was an actual journalist before he wrote The Hurt Locker, and I get that what they're trying to say is that the movie is procedural (i.e., it has no interest in debates about torture, etc.), but it makes people think that you are trying to be more factual accurate than you actually are.

[Surfah]

Much better than Hurt Locker. I thought it was terrific.

[The_Douger]

Going to go see this with my brother right now.

[LA Ute]

I thought this was good:

‘Zero Dark Thirty,’ Lena Dunham, ‘Django’: Stop Politicizing Everything!

[il Padrino Ute]

I thought this was good:

‘Zero Dark Thirty,’ Lena Dunham, ‘Django’: Stop Politicizing Everything!

It's only wrong if it doesn't doesn't reflect progressive values.